August Fastrack re: Fuel Injection

tinking about this, *if* I was going to make a change to the FA we now have I would base the changes to reflect current F3 cars. They are cool cars, Dallara is happy to sell parts and there are a variety of engine choices with various restrictor packages.

Of course all the same issues apply. Its been years since I last drove a F3 car so I may be wrong but I suspect Joe Club will still be faster in his 41 / 014 then he would be in a current true spec F3 car. That of course leads to the issue of getting anyone to buy one( if there is even a market anyways). Sort of the dilema the pro FA series faced getting guys to run the 008 when the 41 was quicker.

It would be akin to when SCCA moved FC from super vee to F2000 cars. It would also bring back the time of wondering from one year to the next if you were going to be out chassis 'd

Interesting thought about the F3 cars. I'm not sure how they compare to current club FA formula, but I agree that the F3 chassis/engine is a very nice package.

What I would really like to see is someone manufacture a new optimized FA chassis to the current SCCA club spec formula. Either a brand new clean sheet design, or perhaps a derivative car using an existing tub but with new aero, suspension, etc. Of course one problem with this idea is that any new car would still be stuck using the current engine options, Toyota or Cosworth most likely. Which brings me back to an earlier point......in my opinion the current lack of modern engine options is the biggest obstacle to the long-term success of the FA class.

Hi Rick,

According to the Dallara website, there are a number of current engine options that all make about 215 hp from a restricted 2 liter design. I guess aroud 250 hp unrestricted.

I think these cars are pricey, but an unrestricted F3 car would be comparable to a current FA in performance, even with a flat bottom/ diffuser. The engines are all production based, and the latest F3 crash standards are better than anything we currently have.

In the abscence of a clean-sheet FA, what is your opinion on the F3 as an option?

Regards,
Bill

Hi Bill,

A couple of points. First, our FA tubs' safety requirements (crash and quasi-static testing) are the same as F3. The 016 exceeds them, as Champcar wanted the car stronger to run ovals. The real difference is that FIA require flat bottoms on F3 cars. Also, FA requires 10" & 14" wheels, whereas F3 uses 8" & 10".

Oh yeah, IIRC F3 uses the same 95cm body width rules that we have in FC. After all, FC is nothing but a mid-70's F3 car, and our present-day FC rules are copied from that class as run at the time in the UK.

F3 engines are held down to about 210 hp via a 26mm inlet restrictor, so adjusting the max power is a simple matter of changing the allowed restrictor opening diameter. A decent modern 4-valve 2-liter should make about 150 hp/l unrestricted, or about 300 hp, and about 250 hp with a 29mm restrictor.

Stan

Hi Stan,

Here are some questions from the unwashed masses (me):

Which FA tubs meet current F3 FIA crash standards?

Rear crash attenuators?

Tube frame FC vs composite tub F3?

10/14 wheels vs 8/10.....wasn't a problem for SV or Pro Mazda, or was it?

Is a current F3 a viable alternative in club FA, or would it be another odd duck? ( ala 016a)

Where/when will a new FA design come from?

No flame here, just interested in other's thoughts.....again, apologies for massive thread creep.

Regards,
Bill

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bill gillespie

Hi Stan,

Here are some questions from the unwashed masses (me):

Which FA tubs meet current F3 FIA crash standards?

---

The key word here is "current", and I don't know if any FA cars meet the "current" F3 rules. FIA changes their standards nearly yearly, and I have not read the 2008 rules closely enough to know if any FA tubs actually meet the current standards. The way the rule has been applied for nearly 20 years in SCCA is that the tub must be shown to have met the crash and static standards for the year in which it was initially released. For example, IIRC the Ralt RT-41 was initially homologated in 1995, and all subsequent RT-41s are permitted under the RT-41's initial homologation (the chassis was in series production until 1997, and remains available to this day on a "built to order" basis.)

Furthermore, until about 6 years ago F3 chassis were not crash tested. Until then the FIA standard for certifying F3 chassis was a "build schedule". The skins had to be a minimum thickness, made to a specific layup schedule, etc., but the tubs were not actually crash tested. The Swift 014 might have been crash tested, but certainly the 016 was. I have seen the test videos. Interestingly, Champcar established a higher-than-F3 crash standard for the 016.

Quote:

---

Rear crash attenuators?

---

SCCA has never required a rear attenuator. All that was ever required by SCCA was that the tub and nose meet the then-current F3 crash standard. We have never enforced FIA's standards for the steering column, cockpit opening size, driver extraction seat, horse collar, rear attenuator, etc.

Quote:

---

Tube frame FC vs composite tub F3?

---

FIA only started crash/static testing tube frame chassis for 2008. AFAIK, only the UK FF "committee chassis" and our current-spec FE chassis have been tested (both passed the F3 tests). (The original FE chassis was a slightly different design, and AFAIK it has not been tested.)

Quote:

---

10/14 wheels vs 8/10.....wasn't a problem for SV or Pro Mazda, or was it?

---

I need to correct something I posted above...F3 uses 9/10 wheels. And no, it would not be a "problem" to permit smaller wheels. There would have to be a consensus in the FA community to permit them, though.

Quote:

---

Is a current F3 a viable alternative in club FA, or would it be another odd duck? ( ala 016a)

---

F3 cars are specifically permitted in FA. See page 182. Approval of alternate engines is not a problem.

Quote:

---

Where/when will a new FA design come from?

---

I hear there will be one at this year's Runoffs. We shall see... :revs:

Quote:

---

No flame here, just interested in other's thoughts.....again, apologies for massive thread creep.

Regards,
Bill

---

Not to worry. I'm confident others are asking the same questions.

Stan

Stan,

Thanks for the great info. You stated that approval of alternate engines for F3 cars is "not a problem". I assume that you are referring to the current F3 engine spec which is around 210hp. Is this assumption correct?

I also assume that a flat-bottom, 210hp F3 Dallara would not be competitive with a current SCCA Atlantic, kind of like the Pro Mazdas or the Fran Am cars. They are allowed to run, but they will not beat a top-flight Ralt or Swift. Most Ralt or Swift owners would probably have no problem with a 210hp F3, but if the car were allowed to have 250 hp there may be a quite different reaction.

It seems to me that the engine issue is the key to this discussion, whether we are talking about the Swift 016a, Dallara F3, or any other car. These cars will require approval of alternative engine packages if they are to compete in the FA class, and as we have seen in FC this will be very difficult to do without harming the current Toyota/Cosworth competitors.

Stan,

Thanks for taking the time to answer my questions.......two comments really jumped out at me:

Rt41 still available on a custom order? By whom?????

F3 in gcr, alternate engines no problem: How about restrictor size increased as a competition adjustment? Wheel size and 6-spd ok??

We live in interesting times.

Best regards,
Bill

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rick Ross

Thanks for the great info. You stated that approval of alternate engines for F3 cars is "not a problem". I assume that you are referring to the current F3 engine spec which is around 210hp. Is this assumption correct?

---

Yes, exactly. Any F3 engine with its 26mm SIR will be routine to approve. That said, if SCCA eventually approves across-the-board inlet-restricted 2 liter engines in FA, I would foresee that the current requirement for the stock stroke will remain in place (bore & stroke are free in F3, so long as swept displacement does not exceed 2000cc).

Quote:

---

I also assume that a flat-bottom, 210hp F3 Dallara would not be competitive with a current SCCA Atlantic, kind of like the Pro Mazdas or the Fran Am cars. They are allowed to run, but they will not beat a top-flight Ralt or Swift. Most Ralt or Swift owners would probably have no problem with a 210hp F3, but if the car were allowed to have 250 hp there may be a quite different reaction.

It seems to me that the engine issue is the key to this discussion, whether we are talking about the Swift 016a, Dallara F3, or any other car. These cars will require approval of alternative engine packages if they are to compete in the FA class, and as we have seen in FC this will be very difficult to do without harming the current Toyota/Cosworth competitors.

---

Again yes. We have a small variety of F3 cars that run occasionally with SCCA, and they are not quite as quick as a modern Atlantic. Note, however, that we do not require them to be flat-bottomed. They are free to adopt Atlantic style tunnels and wings.

FA has an important advantage over FC in the engine arena, in that there is no guarantee in FA that a particular engine package will be competitive. In FC we specifically set out to create "parity" (NOT "equality"), and in spite of sometimes sarcastic dismissal of the progress as a failure, at last year's Runoffs we had two Pintos sandwiching two Zetecs in qualifying, their respective fast race laps within a few hundreths of each other, and a mixed podium. We can't control for driving ability, chassis setup knowledge, and lots of other variables, but the two engine packages are very close, and will get nothing but closer with future adjustments.

If we adopt a restricted 2 liter fomat for the class, then it would have to be available to all, and would be capped at a level comparable to good FA engines now. About 250 hp is the generally accepted power in FA with today's 1600cc engines, so that that strikes me as a good number. Yes, I know that there are engines out there that make a bit more than that, but that number is close enough for dicsussion purposes.

Stan

Stan, you have given us some great issues to ponder, however I'm really curious as to the answer to Bill's question about the availability of a new (same design?) RT 41?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bill gillespie

...two comments really jumped out at me:

Rt41 still available on a custom order? By whom?????

---

Jacek Mucha owns the molds. You'll need to contact him for details.

Quote:

---

F3 in gcr, alternate engines no problem: How about restrictor size increased as a competition adjustment? Wheel size and 6-spd ok??

---

The challenge here is the wheel size. Atlantics are actually slowed down somewhat by the width of their tires. Let a skinny-tired F3 make 250 hp and it will run away from a fat-tired Atlantic at the same power and aero. To increase the size of the F3 restrictor to the 250 hp range we would need to either make them run fat tires, or permit current FAs to run narrower wheels. BTW, this question has been raised in the past by F3 guys, and we offered them a bigger SIR in return for running FA-spec wheels. They declined.

There are two FAs which run 6-sp 'boxes; the Fran-Am cars and the Pro Mazdas. The Fran-Am cars make only about 190-195 hp, so are not a factor in the class. The PMs make pretty much the same power as the FAs, but have restricted gearing and an open diff, so it pretty much balances out. While I don't see any real "need" for a 6th gear, and retrofitting is expensive, if there was widespread support for it I could support it with an appropriate weight adjustment.

Stan

Thanks Stan, I own a "90 Reynard and after a 6 year hiatus I 'm getting back in the saddle. I will keep my Reynard to run conference races up here in the Northwest but I'm looking for a new chassis to start developing and I have been watching this thread with much interest. My friend Mike Demski has been telling about Jenning's engine Bill is running and I'm very interested in this package also, but if the class CRB takes a eye to opening up the engine formula to include 2L engines then I will have to weigh all of the parameters before committing to a format. Thanks again.

The reason why no one was in a big hurry to put the fat wheels and tires on their F3 car was that it hurt the cars balance and hurt its top speed. Well that and the 1st crack of the whip required them to put in a different motor as well. Not much incentive to buy a very good car and then start changing it about.

My comment about going with F3 cars was simply a better alternative if SCCA insists on monkeying about with the class. If a change is going to be made why go with a car that is larger then current rules and only currently accepts one motor and was built as a spec chassis meaning no one else builds one ? Sort of really doesnt change anything except helping swift sell a few more cars and helping entrants into their wallets. Still leaves the same supply issues.

F3 is an international formula. True enough Dallara makes probably 95% of the chassis. But not on spec but rather no one else has been able to build a car quick enough that is worth going out on a limb and buying. The chassis has kits for somehere around 6 or 7 motors (although if memory serves 2 or 3 of those are variations of toyotas)

When I talked about F3 cars being fast enough it was with a apx 250 hp motor and its increased driveability ( guessing over a fa toyota) but everything else as it was designed to run. Obviously the cars are much better 15 years on but when I last sat in one it would not have beaten a proper FA with these specs. would it now ? Damn good question and one that is only theoretical since I dont know of anyone who has tested it. ( no reason to) If it did generate enough grip in the coners that it blew away a current car, and the current car would be faster with smaller wheels then go for it. Pretty easy change to make, although buying 3 or 4 sets new wheels aint cheap.

My preference is to leave well enough alone. Pissing off current drivers in the attempt to attract future drivers is a dangerous proposition. However, if SCCA insists on change then dont change the class so that we have a new car with all the other problems we now have with the current packages.

I had the chance a few years ago to test a 2001 Dallara/VW F3 car. To me it drove alot more like a F2000 car than an Atlantic. It was a very cold day but the car had poor grip(on Avons) and brakes compared to the Atlantic, also the motor only reved to 6k or so, I don't think you could easily modify the F3 to make it on par with a true FA car. Traditionally, Atlantic(and FB before that) has always been a 1600cc, 1000 pound racecar, which happens to be a near perfect combination for a racecar. I think any deviation from that formula is a bad idea for the class.

STAN... question about the 6-spd was based on urrent F3 cars being delivered as 6-spd...........RT41, does Jacek have ALL of the molds/specs/etc for the individual RT41 bits, ie: bellhousing, beams, uprights, roll hoops,etc?

RICK B...... call me if you want info on the Ralt /Cosworth conversion.

KEVIN.........I think a current F3car with a larger restrictor would be interesting.Russ Newman put SV wheels on his RT4 and smoked everyone at the Road Atlanta runoffs one year . Guys way smarter than me seem to think 12" rear wheel with current tires is the ticket for FA......look at some current CSR cars.

Regards,
Bill
770-328-8184

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bill gillespie

STAN... question about the 6-spd was based on urrent F3 cars being delivered as 6-spd...........RT41, does Jacek have ALL of the molds/specs/etc for the individual RT41 bits, ie: bellhousing, beams, uprights, roll hoops,etc?

---

I guess we could allow 6-sp with the ubiquitous 25 lbs weight penalty. I have the bellhousing patterns, but I don't know about all the machined bits. Like I said, you have to talk with Jacek about details. Steve Ward would not sell me the upright patterns, though he may be willing to sell complete units.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Paddy O'Brien

Traditionally, Atlantic(and FB before that) has always been a 1600cc, 1000 pound racecar, which happens to be a near perfect combination for a racecar. I think any deviation from that formula is a bad idea for the class.

---

Well, yes, but since when has an Atlantic weighed 1000 lbs? 1979? ;)

My RT-41 weighs 1060 lbs without driver, fuel, data acq, radio, etc. A Swift 008 or 014 weighs 50+ lbs more than that. Maybe what you mean is an ideal club formula car has a 5:1 wt:hp ratio. At that ratio a 260 hp car weighs 1300 lbs, all up. :thumbsup:

Cheers! Stan

Paddy,
I happen to agree with your purist view of FA, but have you priced an all-out 4AGE, or Cosworth lately?? Well north of 40k depending on how fast you want to go, and how often you want to rebuild.

The genesis of this thread was weight adjustments for FI cars, which lead into the Swift 016a debate , which led into the "what else is out there" debate, etc.

The guys who run my car are realists who have been around a long time, and would like to stay in business. Over the years, they have had a lot of FA customers, and eventually they have all left the class due to engine costs.

Maybe it is time to consider a 2-2.3 litre, production based engine that is de-tuned to 250-260hp. Readily available parts, and a much longer rebuild interval.

I hope the rumored new FA chassis constructor has a real good handle on engine options, and various fitment packages. I would hate to design/fabricate/produce a new car without knowing exactly which lumps might go in the back.

Lastly, I will have to disagree with adding weight to a 6-spd car....that is what started this thread originally. These cars were designed with a target weight, and adding weight may overstress many components. Also, I have a friend who replaced his Staffs 5-spd with a Hewland FTR 6-spd. He says he really didn't go any faster, but instead of 3-4 gear changes a weekend, the rpm drop is now much closer, and he really doesn't need to change ratios nearly as often.

Regards,
Bill

Wow, this thread has covered a lot of ground. Weight penalties....Swift 016....alternate engines....F3....RT-41 parts....wheel sizes....6-speeds....etc. All great topics, of course, but I'm having trouble keeping up.

For Stan and other CRB members, here are my thoughts on a few of these items:

Elimination of the current 25 pound fuel injection weight penalty is not necessary and an all around bad idea. Don't do it.

I am still skeptical about the introduction of the Swift 016a into the class if other new chassis options are out there, although I do think that it is appropriate for the CRB to investigate this option. The 016 is a spec, one-make car with only one engine option, and it will bring it's own problems. I would prefer to see an all new design, or perhaps something like the previously discussed F3 cars.

In my opinion a modern 2.0L engine option would be good for the long-term success of the class. It may not be necessary today, but it will be necessary in the future. I know too many people who stay away from FA or leave the class due to the current engine costs. I currently limit myself to three or four race weekends per year, and engine costs are the primary reason. The question is whether or not we want to address this issue now, or wait until it becomes necessary to do so in the future.

I would like to see the CRB take a look at the current F3 cars to see if they might benefit the class. They certainly deserve the same consideration that is currently being given to the 016. Of course, if the F3 cars are allowed in with restricted 2.0L 250hp engines, then this same engine package should be available to all FA competitors.

As for wheel sizes, I see no need to make a change unless it is necessary in the future as a competition "adjustment".

Anyway, that's my $0.02. I trust that the CRB will very carefully consider all these issues and allow time for ample member comments before making any final recommendations to the BOD.

Per the Fastrack yesterday, the proposed elimination of the efi weight penalty has been tabled for further input/discussion.......now is the time to let the crb/bod know your vote.

I'm voting with Paul to reduce all weights to get rid of dangerous ballast. The efi/sequential is now the norm, and weight reductions can be given from that standard to carbs/ h-pattern.....at least, that's my vote.

Sorry Rick, you're too fast anyway, I'm asking to add 50# to you and your DB4.

Regards,
Bill

Hmmm.......perhaps we need a 50 lb. penalty for all alloy block Cosworth motors :D.

All kidding aside, though, I can understand why an overall 25 pound weight reduction for all cars might be desireable. Although it will certainly not help me........if I was carrying around a lot of ballast I would no doubt be all for a weight reduction.

Of course, if there is an across the board weight reduction I may have to get Rennie to design and build some fancy carbon wings and tunnels for my old DB4. Now if only the driver could lose 20 pounds.......

the weight reduction across the class is really a bit of a lark. Adding ballast to cars that need it to meet minimum isnt dangerous or particularly difficult. 25 lbs wont mean a hill of beans in terms of performance. It certainly doesnt make the cars any ' safer '. If it is for safety then every single FA that runs a national is dangerous on the grid and somehow becomes safe mid way thru the race after burning off 4 gallons of fuel.

As for performance I dont think there are 5 guys in the country who could tell whether or not they are carrying and extra 25 pounds or not. Its easy to test. run a 5 session test ( so there isnt a 50% chance of guessing correctly) have the driver stand behind the trailer while you either add or subtract ballast. After the 5 session ask him which run was at which weight. Wanna have a good laugh, dont ever change anything and listen as he explains all the difference in the 2 weights.

End of the day makes no difference to me which is why I didnt bother to send in a letter either way.

Uh Kevin, no offense, but I think there are physics professors and engineers dying to give a treatise on the exponential increase of potential and kinetic energy with the addition of each pound.....at a given speed.....the higher the speed, the greater the dispariy of energy increase.

The fact that I am too big a wanker to feel the difference in my butt doesn't remove that energy when it comes to a "sudden stop" in a racecar.

maybe "size doesn't matter" but I'm pretty sure weight does...jmo

Regards,
Bill

Bill I am well aware of the physics involved. Which was one of my points. If someone is claiming that the cars are dangerous to drive at the current weight but would somehow become safe with a 25 lb deduction then you are saying your car is unsafe to start a race ( on a full fuel load). Kind of means that the safety steward would be within his rights to stop any current FA from running a national race.

Will 25lbs reduce the impact ? Of course it will. Do I feel unsafe racing a car at the current rule set ? Nope. And my question would have to be if someone feels they are unsafe then why the hell would you leave the grid ?

As I said I am all good if guys want to race at a lighter weight. But lets be honest about things. Its more about not wanting to have to deal with the ballast. the fact that there are plenty of cars that arent at minimum now anyways will be the ones that will argue against it. The field is so spread out now anyways I just dont think it will make any difference.

If you really wanted to make a change on safety basis it should be a weight change greater then that which the car is going to go thru in a normal session. That would mean 75-100 pound change. That would make a real noticeable difference. Unfortunately I dont know how many , if any, car / drivers could meet it. That would put a carb'd RT41 at 1155 with a DB4 , RT4 , Reynard 25 pounds lighter yet. My racing weight in full gear with helmet was 138 pounds. Even with me being a flyweight I dont know of any cars that I would have met that weight with. I might have brought it off with a FI RT41. Even then the car would have had to weigh 1042 without me in it. thats pretty light but could probably be done. But its not realistic to expect anyone to meet my weight.

According to the latest Fastrack, the CRB has decided not to act upon the proposal to eliminate the 25 lb. fuel injection weight penalty. This means that all FA minimum weights will remain unchanged for 2009.

Thanks to all who took the time to write the CRB and/or BOD to express their views on this subject.